[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

dc I suggest you get a hard grip on reality bro. Your pretentious demanding of what one should and shouldn't do is kinda creepy.

You have been completely spazzing out the past day. I suggest you may need to take a small break from the PL?

You seem a bit unhinged.

Someone made a personal attack. You defended that personal attack. I only said you didn't need to stoop to his level and then accused me of being a troll. Obviously you believe you do. And have since then, been spazzing out about HOW I should react and post to you.

Seriously man. I don't know what to say.

Go on. Rant all you want. I am done with this inane silliness.

Fixed.

If you want to call me a troll then by all means have the evidence to back it up. But my agreeing with mania's criticism of AW does not make me a troll. There is no way one could logically deduce from one statement of agreement with a previous poster's comment that I was engaging in trollish behavior. You threw out the Troll-card when it was in-appropriate to do so and now you won't own up to the fact of its in-appropriateness.

[dcmacdaddy]

Well, looks like Kevin is out so we can get back to discussing Aberdeenwriter's viewpoint of government oversight of its citizens and mania's reaction to that viewpoint.

Here's a refresher for where we are at.

Originally Posted by BRussell

abdereen, your view of government as parents and citizens as children is... interesting. I was going to say "revealing," but I hope it doesn't really reveal your true view of government. Go limp and stop making noise so momma can protect them? Say it's not so, aberdeen.

Originally Posted by mania

I agree he is beyond insane - do not bother with him - let him go limp so mama bush can care for him.

While mania's post IS harsh I sense some sarcasm in it as well. But he makes an interesting point by comparing President Bush to a mothering figure. With Aberdeenwriter's analogy of government=parents/citizens=children I would have thought that people would see President Bush as the father-figure. But I think mania is on to something here. The American citizens might just see President Bush as a nurturing mother-figure providing comfort in our time of fear after the attacks of September 11th.

What do you all think of this? Assuming Aberdeenwriter's metaphor is appropriate, is President Bush a father-figure or mother-figure?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Fixed.

If you want to call me a troll then by all means have the evidence to back it up.

Most of your posts in this part of the forum today is all the evidence one needs.

If you can't see how your actions today can easily be construed as "trolling" I don't know what to tell you dc.

If you can't see how your grammatical attacks on how someone respond to you and your "critiques" of such responses aren't derailing threads and doesn't verge on trolling, I also don't know what to tell you. I really don't.

What is happening RIGHT NOW is also proof of that.

I suggest maybe you re-asses your posts.

This time, without the self-righteous indignation.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

One more post, and this is the last, I promise.

Most of your posts in this part of the forum today is all the evidence one needs.

If you can't see how your actions today can easily be construed as "trolling" I don't know what to tell you dc.

I really don't.

Instead of constantly arguing with me for the justification of calling me a troll why don't you look one post above yours and respond to some of those questions there. Thirty posts ago, had you responded to my agreement with mania with comments/questions of your own, instead of calling me a troll, none of this exchange would have taken place. We were having a good discussion and then you throw out the Troll card, out of nowhere, and now you wonder why someone takes offense at it? It seems to me you are the one without a "hard grip on reality". You derail a thread making personal attacks on someone and when they respond to you demanding an explanation for the personal attacks you have the audacity to question their intentions? Come now, Kevin, even YOU don't have that much hubris. Just admit you were wrong for calling me a troll and get back to discussing the topic at hand.

[dcmacdaddy]

While Simey and cpt kangarooski have been debating the legality of what constitutes legally sanctions Presidential behavior, I am still bothered by the fact that President Bush had a mechanism at his disposal to engage in secret wire-taps of American citizens but he CHOSE not to use it. Why do you think that is? I can see in the immediate panic right after the attacks the decision could have been made to "check everything" for evidence of follow-on atacks but it seems that after the first few days someone should have said, "Whoa" and reigned in any plans for un-limited, un-authorized wire-taps on American citizens. But no one did. Why is that?

[Kevin]

Why would I admit something I know not to be true? Are you asking me to be dishonest?

None of this exchange would have taken place if you didn't get offended by me saying you were dropping to his level. Your self-rightous indignation was again getting the best of you.

Just like it is now.

I am sorry if I "stepped" on your toes. It wasn't my intentions.

And yes, you seem to be a bit edgy and overly- pissy today.

I've even received AIMs with people WONDERING why you are acting so erratic today.

If there is something personal going on, no need to take it out on forum members.

If I am not in a good mood, I generally stay out of the PL.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why would I admit something I know not to be true? Are you asking me to be dishonest?

None of this exchange would have taken place if you didn't get offended by me saying you were dropping to his level. Your self-rightous indignation was again getting the best of you.

Just like it is now.

I am sorry if I "stepped" on your toes. It wasn't my intentions.

"Dropping to his[mania's] level" != trolling. I got offended after you called me a troll not after you accused me of dropping to his level. But, apology accepted.


So, what do you think of mania's implied suggestion that Bush is a mother-figure in the government "family"? I think there might be some merit to this? If you follow the logic of AW's analogy, Bush is the tough, protective mother keeping her arms tightly around the little ones during a bad storm or when there has been an accident. I think this view of Bush might explain a lot of the American public's approval. What do you think?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And yes, you seem to be a bit edgy and overly- pissy today.

I've even received AIMs with people WONDERING why you are acting so erratic today.

If there is something personal going on, no need to take it out on forum members.

Nothing personal going on. I have never been called a troll before and take great offense at that. I was not going to let you get away without offering an apology. That's all. You have apologized, the discussion has continued.

[Kevin]

Ah you've pretty much ignored what I said, while still acting self righteous.

Don't be surprised if this isn't brought up by other people again.


I am sure you will get all offended again.

HOW DARE THEY!@!1

And yes, I still feel you are being trollish. And no, it's not all in my head.

You getting offended or not.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ah you've pretty much ignored what I said, while still acting self righteous.

Don't be surprised if this isn't brought up by other people again.


I am sure you will get all offended again.

HOW DARE THEY!@!1

And yes, I still feel you are being trollish. And no, it's not all in my head.

You getting offended or not.

I have already accepted your apology and see no need to re-open the discussion about you calling me a troll. How about we get back to discussing Aberdeenwriter's views of the government as parental substitutes for its citizen/children?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

While Simey and cpt kangarooski have been debating the legality of what constitutes legally sanctions Presidential behavior, I am still bothered by the fact that President Bush had a mechanism at his disposal to engage in secret wire-taps of American citizens but he CHOSE not to use it. Why do you think that is? I can see in the immediate panic right after the attacks the decision could have been made to "check everything" for evidence of follow-on atacks but it seems that after the first few days someone should have said, "Whoa" and reigned in any plans for un-limited, un-authorized wire-taps on American citizens. But no one did. Why is that?

First of all, I've read nothing from any reputable news source (or the NY Times, for that matter ) that says that Bush is engaging in "un-limited, un-authorized wiretaps" on citizens. What I have read is that all of these taps pertain to international communications where there is a person of interest on one end or another. If there is an American citizen on the line, then normally a warrant needs to be produced.

The existing procedure allows the wiretap to be set up first, then have the DOJ get the necessary warrant paperwork signed and approved by the FISA court within three days after the wiretap. I believe what is at issue, though, is the level of proof needed to secure a warrant is higher than the administration would like. So the administration says that the authorization to go to war also included increased survellience powers, that these powers let it tap communications without going to the FISA court first for a warrant, and that the burden of proof that the DOJ needs to initiate this tap is lower than the FISA court requires.

I've also read that the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Survellience Act) was created specifically to correct abuses stemming from Nixon's time in office. Once again, this discussion leads to Tricky Dick. Anyone know any good books about his presidency, I think I may need to read up to find out what the next three years are going to be like....

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Dork.

First of all, I've read nothing from any reputable news source (or the NY Times, for that matter ) that says that Bush is engaging in "un-limited, un-authorized wiretaps" on citizens. What I have read is that all of these taps pertain to international communications where there is a person of interest on one end or another. If there is an American citizen on the line, then normally a warrant needs to be produced.

The existing procedure allows the wiretap to be set up first, then have the DOJ get the necessary warrant paperwork signed and approved by the FISA court within three days after the wiretap. I believe what is at issue, though, is the level of proof needed to secure a warrant is higher than the administration would like. So the administration says that the authorization to go to war also included increased survellience powers, that these powers let it tap communications without going to the FISA court first for a warrant, and that the burden of proof that the DOJ needs to initiate this tap is lower than the FISA court requires.

I've also read that the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Survellience Act) was created specifically to correct abuses stemming from Nixon's time in office. Once again, this discussion leads to Tricky Dick. Anyone know any good books about his presidency, I think I may need to read up to find out what the next three years are going to be like....

Yes, I have been talking about the FISA system. And yes, my point is that "the level of proof needed to secure a warrant" should remain the same and not be reduced for this administration. From what I understand the level of proof for FISA approval requires naming a definite target. If the government wants to use the US intelligence apparatus to spy on people in the US I want the government to know who the hell they are planning to spy on. Not just decide to start spying in the hopes of seeing what might come up.

If the NSA intercepts communications coming into this country from a terrorist group or individual overseas, then they already know a) there is a domestic recipent and b) who is the domestic recipient. The DOJ just needs to obtain that information (who is the recipient), send it to FISA, and get approval to start spying on that person domestically. Why is this procedure so complicated that the Bush Administration feels the need to circumvent it and authorize spying on American citizens without approval from a FISA court? That is what I want to know.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Why is this procedure so complicated that the Bush Administration feels the need to circumvent it and authorize spying on American citizens without approval from a FISA court? That is what I want to know.

I think Bush just has this "I'm a wartime president" philosophy, and they want as much executive power as possible. They feel that if they insist on more executive power, even when unnecessary (and I believe that not seeking warrants was unnecessary), that they'll have more grounds for other kinds of executive power when they claim it. A kind of "use it or lose it" philosophy.

When I'm feeling more cynical, I believe that this administration sees the war on terror primarily as a political construct, and they do things like this to get the Democrats complaining so they can then say the Dems are for the terrorists. You can bet that this issue is going to be front and center in the 2006 elections.

Fortunately I haven't gotten cynical enough to believe that Bush did this so members of his administration could spy on his political opponents without oversight.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Fortunately I haven't gotten cynical enough to believe that Bush did this so members of his administration could spy on his political opponents without oversight.

Yeah, I haven't gotten that cynical yet. But if anyone could find a way to do such a thing it would be Karl Rove. He is all about political gain. Although, any administration getting caught doing domestic spying in a time of war for political purposes, as opposed to national defense purposes, would be run out of office and shamed by History for their actions. I don't think Karl is even willing to take that gamble.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

If the NSA intercepts communications coming into this country from a terrorist group or individual overseas, then they already know a) there is a domestic recipent and b) who is the domestic recipient. The DOJ just needs to obtain that information (who is the recipient), send it to FISA, and get approval to start spying on that person domestically. Why is this procedure so complicated that the Bush Administration feels the need to circumvent it and authorize spying on American citizens without approval from a FISA court? That is what I want to know.

Apparently, it takes several days to prepare a FISA warrant, and the FISA court has gotten into the habit of sitting on those inches-thick applications for many months before issuing a warrent (or not). Moreover, you are making an assumption that doesn't logically follow. You wrote:

If the NSA intercepts communications coming into this country from a terrorist group or individual overseas, then they already know a) there is a domestic recipent and b) who is the domestic recipient.

I'd like to know how you arrive at that conclusion because it doesn't seem to follow at all. Think about it for a moment. Suppose we had Bin Laden's phone number (which in fact at one point until it was blown in the media by Senator Orrin Hatch we did have). Bin Laden could call anyone in the world. Just because we have Bin Laden's phone number does not mean we have any idea at all who Bin Laden is going to call. It is just like any other phone number. I can look up a number in the phone book. Just because I know that number doesn't mean I can anticipate who the person at that number will call. You would need a crystal ball to be able to predict the future in that way. So your assumption that you have lots of time for the paperwork is false. The reality is, you know who Bin Laden is calling when Bin Laden makes the call, and not before.

Suppose Bin Laden calls an American telephone number. Suppose his call lasts 30 seconds. It's not possible to fill out the extensive paperwork for a FISA warrant, convene the FISA judges, hold a hearing, and then obtain the warrant in time for that call. So you have to make a decision: do you:

1. Intercept the call. I.e. sidestep FISA.

2. Monitor Bin Laden, but not monitor him when he is making his most important calls -- i.e. to agents inside the US -- because there isn't time to get a warrant.

3. Not monitor Bin Laden at all, in case he calls an American. (As written, FISA can be read to say that you cannot monitor a person if that person is likely to call someone in the US).

If you insist on FISA as the only way to handle this, then you are saying in effect that calls to and from agents in the US are forever protected and that the government can never monitor them. That seems rather stupid to me. It is also not necessary since there is at least a good argument that FISA doesn't even apply in this circumstance. The legal arguments have been well explored elsewhere.

I would say, though, now that certain traitors in the National Security Agency have decided to break the law and sell out their oaths by blowing this particular intelligence operation, there is no reason for Congress not to reopen the FISA statute and update it. FISA is a dinosaur, and arguably unconstitutional to boot. It dates from a moment of particular liberal hysteria in which the US gutted our intelligence capabilities in a way that ended up leaving us vulnerable to terrorism (inadvertently, of course, but plenty of people argued at the time it was a bad idea). FISA also dates from a technological time when telephones were wired into the walls and each house generally only had one telephone number that was given out very slowly by a single monopoly (Ma Bell). In the modern era of disposable cell phones and almost instantly obtainable telephone numbers and new internet telephony technologies, a warrant procedure that takes days to complete and which requires fixed telephone numbers is absurd. If people seriously want some kind of FISA-like mechanism, then the mechanism needs to be usable. It needs to be updated to meet the modern technological and threat realities, because letting terrorists communicate freely isn't acceptable.

The irony also is that the procedures to get a warrant to listen to the communications for terrorists are considerably harder than the procedures your local police need to get a warrant to search your house. In fact, most police searches require no warrant at all -- there are a huge number of exceptions. Your car, in particular, can be searched without a warrant, pretty much any time a cop feels like it. Even where warrants are needed, the standard is far from rigorous. Far from taking the extensive justification needed for a FISA warrant, and far from needing to convince a skeptical appellate-level panel of judges, all you need is a one page affidavit (or even a phone call) to a local magistrate. Even if the warrant ends up being defective, it is usually declared legal afterwards.

People's priorities here are seriously out of whack. You are screaming about the privacy of terrorists, while the front door to the privacy of your house is wide open. That's the problem when people approach an issue politically, and not rationally.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Suppose Bin Laden calls an American telephone number. Suppose his call lasts 30 seconds. It's not possible to fill out the extensive paperwork for a FISA warrant, convene the FISA judges, hold a hearing, and then obtain the warrant in time for that call. So you have to make a decision: do you:

1. Intercept the call. I.e. sidestep FISA.

2. Monitor Bin Laden, but not monitor him when he is making his most important calls -- i.e. to agents inside the US -- because there isn't time to get a warrant.

3. Not monitor Bin Laden at all, in case he calls an American. (As written, FISA can be read to say that you cannot monitor a person if that person is likely to call someone in the US).

4. Do the wiretap immediately and apply for the warrant 72 hours later, as the law allows.
5. Change the law, and follow it until it is changed.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Apparently, it takes several days to prepare a FISA warrant, and the FISA court has gotten into the habit of sitting on those inches-thick applications for many months before issuing a warrent (or not). Moreover, you are making an assumption that doesn't logically follow. You wrote:

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

If the NSA intercepts communications coming into this country from a terrorist group or individual overseas, then they already know a) there is a domestic recipent and b) who is the domestic recipient.

I'd like to know how you arrive at that conclusion because it doesn't seem to follow at all.

Well, for starters the NSA already monitors communications traffic overseas. I don't think that is open to debate. And they have "watch lists" of numbers they monitor for overseas communication. If they detect an incoming call from a number on one of their "watch lists" then they can trace it to the recipient number here in the States.

So, in a hypothetical scenario we would now know that a) terrorists are calling into the United States and b) have a number for the recipient of that call. Now, the government can go to a FISA court and request permission to covertly intercept future communications being made from that domestic number. Something that I would whole-heartedly support. We would have a known number in the US being reached from outside the country by a known number from a terrorist group. That number should be monitored until there is reason to believe the recipient is not a threat or there is evidence the recipient is engaged in terrorist activity at which time the recipient should be arrested.

As for your concern about rapidly changing communication technologies, I think the FISA statute should be amended such that once a specific line of communication has helped identify a suspect, a warrant could be obtained for ALL forms of communication the suspect/recipient uses.

So, once the NSA knows the target number in the US, technology can be used to trace where exactly that call was received and perhaps to whom. Once identification of the individual recipient is made, then they should be surrounded in a spectral bubble such that they can't communicate in any electronic form without us monitoring it.

But, I don't want that bubble of interecepts to occur until we have a specific person or persons to track. I don't want it to apply generally but to specific individuals who have been contacted by a foreign terrorist organization. I AM willing to accept missing calls from terrorists overseas to ensure that the US government does not spy on its citizens without specific evidence they have been contacted by a foreign terrorist.

[thunderous_funker]

Why can't this whole "Bush/Clinton" thing end in murder suicide?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Well, for starters the NSA already monitors communications traffic overseas. I don't think that is open to debate. And they have "watch lists" of numbers they monitor for overseas communication. If they detect an incoming call from a number on one of their "watch lists" then they can trace it to the recipient number here in the States.

So, in a hypothetical scenario we would now know that a) terrorists are calling into the United States and b) have a number for the recipient of that call. Now, the government can go to a FISA court and request permission to covertly intercept future communications being made from that domestic number. Something that I would whole-heartedly support. We would have a known number in the US being reached from outside the country by a known number from a terrorist group. That number should be monitored until there is reason to believe the recipient is not a threat or there is evidence the recipient is engaged in terrorist activity at which time the recipient should be arrested.

As for your concern about rapidly changing communication technologies, I think the FISA statute should be amended such that once a specific line of communication has helped identify a suspect, a warrant could be obtained for ALL forms of communication the suspect/recipient uses.

So, once the NSA knows the target number in the US, technology can be used to trace where exactly that call was received and perhaps to whom. Once identification of the individual recipient is made, then they should be surrounded in a spectral bubble such that they can't communicate in any electronic form without us monitoring it.

But, I don't want that bubble of interecepts to occur until we have a specific person or persons to track. I don't want it to apply generally but to specific individuals who have been contacted by a foreign terrorist organization. I AM willing to accept missing calls from terrorists overseas to ensure that the US government does not spy on its citizens without specific evidence they have been contacted by a foreign terrorist.

It's kind of naive to think that terrorists are going to cooperatively make multiple telephone calls to the same number just so that bumbling Americans have time to catch up with them, don't you think? Especially, of course, when we insist on shouting from the front pages of the New York Times exactly how are intelligence works.

In reality, you get one shot and then they throw away the disposable telephone and get another. If you don't catch it on that one shot, you don't catch it.

To be honest, I think the solution is to repeal FISA altogether as a bad piece of legislation that never should have been passed. In its stead you could pass a piece of legislation preventing wiretaps from being used for crimes other than ones related to national defense. The issue isn't so much whether anyone is listening, it's what is done with what is being listened to. Make sure that only intelligence agencies and the department of defense can use the information, and keep civil prosecutors away from the information and I don't see so much of a problem. That way we can defend the country against terrorism, while keeping a (relatively, see my post above) high bar for civil liberties in the domestic law enforcement area.

[mania]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I guess if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

Reported.

waaahhh, kevin reported me to the teacher - waaahhh.

man - relax - just trying to say something funny about limp cubs, not a personal attack.

[mania]

ps. i should point out that calling someone insane is actually a complement - note that the highest post count here receive a designation of "clinically insane". hmmph!

[thunderous_funker]

Establishing "just cause" takes too long so we should do away with it?

Hey, if the approval process needs streamlining or major renovation to help people do their job, that's certainly on the table, but are we seriously willing to waive those protections on the trust that the ruling party should be trusted when they consider someone a suspect?

Even if you don't believe this administration would abuse such power (and I don't see why anyone would doubt that) why should we establish such a precedent with empowers future adminsitrations?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

It's kind of naive to think that terrorists are going to cooperatively make multiple telephone calls to the same number just so that bumbling Americans have time to catch up with them, don't you think? Especially, of course, when we insist on shouting from the front pages of the New York Times exactly how are intelligence works.

In reality, you get one shot and then they throw away the disposable telephone and get another. If you don't catch it on that one shot, you don't catch it.

To be honest, I think the solution is to repeal FISA altogether as a bad piece of legislation that never should have been passed. In its stead you could pass a piece of legislation preventing wiretaps from being used for crimes other than ones related to national defense. The issue isn't so much whether anyone is listening, it's what is done with what is being listened to. Make sure that only intelligence agencies and the department of defense can use the information, and keep civil prosecutors away from the information and I don't see so much of a problem. That way we can defend the country against terrorism, while keeping a (relatively, see my post above) high bar for civil liberties in the domestic law enforcement area.

Wow! "bumbling Americans" is it? You don't think highly of your fellow citizens nor of those who work to defend us, do you?

And if you don't catch it on that one shot, too bad. I do NOT want the government to have license to conduct domestic spying without having a specific target in mind for that spying. I am all for amending FISA, or scrapping it and replacing it with something altogether new, as long as the requirement remains that the government identifies a specific target for domestic spying before, or within reason immediately after, initiating the spying. A government that can spy on its citizens for no particualr reason is not much of a democracy, is it?

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Uh-huh. Large approval rating. Because you say so. Despite empirical evidence to the contrary that I show you. You just know. Boy I sure feel utterly humiliated now.

You should, using a poll with an error margin of plus or minus 2%, posting its findings (which in Raleigh, is 46% approval with the error margin making a 48% possible) then claiming that not to be a "large approval rating." Nowhere did I claim a majority.

How are those remedials coming?

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Monique

North Carolina, aren't you guys still have the southern flag as your state flag, burn crosses, and sing dixie.

Not even close:
How would you like that crow prepared?



Stick to Canadian politics - like I said.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I think Bush just has this "I'm a wartime president" philosophy, and they want as much executive power as possible. They feel that if they insist on more executive power, even when unnecessary (and I believe that not seeking warrants was unnecessary), that they'll have more grounds for other kinds of executive power when they claim it. A kind of "use it or lose it" philosophy.

When I'm feeling more cynical, I believe that this administration sees the war on terror primarily as a political construct, and they do things like this to get the Democrats complaining so they can then say the Dems are for the terrorists. You can bet that this issue is going to be front and center in the 2006 elections.

Fortunately I haven't gotten cynical enough to believe that Bush did this so members of his administration could spy on his political opponents without oversight.

You say GWB WANTS as much executive power as possible?!!!? How about he IS a WARTIME PRESIDENT and he NEEDS as much power as possible?

I think you must believe GWB is actually McGyver! Otherwise you wouldn't post as though you think the only way he can amuse and entertain you is if he wins the DOMESTIC war on terror with a tin can, a safety pin and a ball of string!

BRussell, over the weeks and months you have impressed me as being a bright guy. Check out the domestic powers that FDR enjoyed while fighting a conventional enemy which didn't have the internet or untraceable cell phones. GWB's powers don't come close to FDR's even though the opposition Bush faces is greater and the risks are higher.

Osama may have nukes already in the US. Iran has a very strong military and they are ready to fight conventionally or as terrorists. And the right (or wrong) word from GWB or someone on our side and we have a world war.

Think about it. Don't you really believe GWB needs all the help he can get to keep our bacons out of the fire?

[Monique]

But you guys in North Carolina still burned crosses as a sign of welcoming your ethnic neighbors.

No I will not stick to Canadian politics as long as you will invade foreign countries.

And, Bush does not want to keep you safe just like MacCarthy did not want to keep the American population safe.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Monique

But you guys in North Carolina still burned crosses as a sign of welcoming your ethnic neighbors.

No I will not stick to Canadian politics as long as you will invade foreign countries.

And, Bush does not want to keep you safe just like MacCarthy did not want to keep the American population safe.

You're "thinking" (and I use this term in its loosest possible connotation) of things that happened in Alabama and Mississippi over 50 YEARS ago. And I said you should stick to Canadian politics so that you might have a chance of actually having a clue about which you speak.

There used to be Klan here, years ago, but they never were in anything resembling a majority and never rose to anything remotely ressembling the power they had in the Deep South, then they were ridiculed and run out of the state.

Here's a suggestion. Do some research before making accusations based on stereotypes that don't even apply to the state you're posting about, huh?

[boots]

Originally Posted by Monique

But you guys in North Carolina still burned crosses as a sign of welcoming your ethnic neighbors.

No I will not stick to Canadian politics as long as you will invade foreign countries.

And, Bush does not want to keep you safe just like MacCarthy did not want to keep the American population safe.

Actually, the most recent example of that particularly distasteful activity comes from Minnesota. So much for "White Northern Liberals."

I don't think you need to worry about us invading. We pretty much consider you our 51 state anyway.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Think about it. Don't you really believe GWB needs all the help he can get to keep our bacons out of the fire?

I gather he's not worreid about the extent of the President's Power during a wartime crisis, but rather, who's currently President and whether or not we can trust him to use it for the right reasons.

I'm going to say No. I don't have a problem with the President having all the rights that he/she needs to keep us safe. But the reality of it is that they're not going to use it for that (or only for that), but they're quite obviously going to use it for their own personal agenda.

I actually find that pretty sickening. I have to be critical of the man I should trust only less to our divine Creator(s), and that my trust is so little.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by boots

Actually, the most recent example of that particularly distasteful activity comes from Minnesota. So much for "White Northern Liberals."

I don't think you need to worry about us invading. We pretty much consider you our 51 state anyway.

Damn, is that Spliffdaddy in those Tony Lamas?

[boots]

(The world may never know. )

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Wow! "bumbling Americans" is it? You don't think highly of your fellow citizens nor of those who work to defend us, do you?

And if you don't catch it on that one shot, too bad. I do NOT want the government to have license to conduct domestic spying without having a specific target in mind for that spying. I am all for amending FISA, or scrapping it and replacing it with something altogether new, as long as the requirement remains that the government identifies a specific target for domestic spying before, or within reason immediately after, initiating the spying. A government that can spy on its citizens for no particualr reason is not much of a democracy, is it?

Bumbling in the sense that we are forgetting that we are at war with an enemy who both wants to kill us, and isn't going to go out of its way to conduct itself in a way that is convenient for us. They are going to exploit our weaknesses, including our legal weaknesses. We forget that at our peril.

There is a sensible op-ed in the New York Times that makes this point. I don't agree with every word, but it is one of the more sensible takes on the matter that I have heard.

FISA was only created as a reaction to the news that JFK was bugging MLK's telephone. All we need to do is come up with a mechanism that prevents that kind of gross abuse. A mechanism such as you are calling for would go far too far in the direction of giving an advantage to terrorists. Sorry, you have lost me on that one. The NSA is not a bigger threat than al-Queda, and pretending that it is is to lose sight of reality.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Monique

No I will not stick to Canadian politics as long as you will invade foreign countries.

And, Bush does not want to keep you safe just like MacCarthy did not want to keep the American population safe.

I understand that it is impossible to prevent you and other Foreign Agents from commenting on American politics. I do, however, take comfort in the fact that we are not in the middle of an election.

But, how can you honestly say that Bush does not want to keep us safe?

And, even though Sen. McCarthy may have had additional motivations beyond just that of protecting us, you can not possibly minimize the role he played, and the impact he had in keeping America safe from Communist infiltration into the positions of power and influence.

Don't allow the movie, "Good Night and Good Luck," to brainwash you into believing what is simply ONE SIDE of this complex issue.

[Monique]

I am not minimizing the role he played; but all you could hear from his mouth at the time was that communism was such a threat and that he should be able to do whatever he wanted for the good of the nation. Isn't it what Bush is saying right now.

[cpt kangarooski]

SimeyTheLimey--

I would say, though, now that certain traitors in the National Security Agency have decided to break the law and sell out their oaths by blowing this particular intelligence operation, there is no reason for Congress not to reopen the FISA statute and update it.

If the operation is unlawful, then not only are they not traitors, they are patriots who are upholding the law by ratting out criminals within the government. While it's not quite the same situation, I'm reminded of Daniel Ellsberg, also a good guy. Don't count your chickens yet, Simey.

FISA is a dinosaur, and arguably unconstitutional to boot.

I agree. It's far too lax.

The issue isn't so much whether anyone is listening

I completely disagree. The government shouldn't intrude on private communications at all without a proper warrant. It's not acceptable for them to be free to listen in on people just because they don't plan on going to court with what they're hearing.

aberdeenwriter--

you can not possibly minimize the role he played

He played no role whatsoever, other than to terrorize a large number of innocent people and to encourage an atmosphere of fear in which even more innocents were harmed. He was not involved in or aware of any actual counterintelligence operations. He is utterly indefensible.

the impact he had in keeping America safe from Communist infiltration into the positions of power and influence.

Again, he had no impact at all. McCarthy picked names pretty much at random. If he had been involved in counterintelligence, which he wasn't, he would have wasted a ton of resources on false positives, and would have ignored false negatives as a result. The handful of people he named who actually did turn out to be spies were nothing more than dumb luck. He might as well have just held up the goddamn white pages for the DC area, that's how scattershot the guy was.

Don't you really believe GWB needs all the help he can get to keep our bacons out of the fire?

No. I think he (and government generally) are far more dangerous than any terrorists. Governments have lots more resources, and face less significant opposition. When Bin Laden is as dangerous as Stalin or Pol Pot or Mao or any of a dozen assholes that ran their own countries, then he might be worth some attention. Right now he's really not that impressive and frankly, he never will be.

But, how can you honestly say that Bush does not want to keep us safe?

He is grabbing more and more power and increasingly disregarding the rule of law and the Constitution. He's basically indistinguishable from a dictator that's quietly taking control. Our government was founded on the principle that no one can be trusted with too much power, that those in power must be checked by opposing powers, and that some powers should always remain unavailable.

How do I know that Bush is not a bad guy? He's acting like one. And even if he has the best of intentions, which I do not believe for a second, he's exposing us to danger from any bad government officials that might come along in the future.

Dismantling our safeguards against concentrations of power is like turning off the safeguards of a nuclear reactor. Eventually we get royally ****ed because we did not keep from destroying ourselves. The alarms are going off.

[Kevin]

No. I think he (and government generally) are far more dangerous than any terrorists.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

SimeyTheLimey--


If the operation is unlawful, then not only are they not traitors, they are patriots who are upholding the law by ratting out criminals within the government. While it's not quite the same situation, I'm reminded of Daniel Ellsberg, also a good guy. Don't count your chickens yet, Simey.

The program is not not unlawful. Indeed, it's necessary. But in any case, it wasn't their decision to declassify it, and they went about it completely the wrong way. They broke the law by revealing classified information to the enemy in wartime, significantly weakening our ability to defend ourselves. They couldn't have done worse if they had simply spied for al-Queda. Throw them in jail, and throw away the key.

In any case, IF it is unlawful, the proper course is for government whistleblowers (or those who think they are whistleblowers) to report privately to Congress. Especially, of course, if they think it is a law passed by Congress that is being violated. They do not have the right to leak the information to newspapers. That is not whistleblowing. That is criminal behavior plain and simple. They took the law into their own hands, and it is wrong.

I would like to see the criminals in government ratted out. We can start with these traitors.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Bumbling in the sense that we are forgetting that we are at war with an enemy who both wants to kill us, and isn't going to go out of its way to conduct itself in a way that is convenient for us. They are going to exploit our weaknesses, including our legal weaknesses. We forget that at our peril.

There is a sensible op-ed in the New York Times that makes this point. I don't agree with every word, but it is one of the more sensible takes on the matter that I have heard.

FISA was only created as a reaction to the news that JFK was bugging MLK's telephone. All we need to do is come up with a mechanism that prevents that kind of gross abuse. A mechanism such as you are calling for would go far too far in the direction of giving an advantage to terrorists. Sorry, you have lost me on that one. The NSA is not a bigger threat than al-Queda, and pretending that it is is to lose sight of reality.

How is this war any different than any other war we have fought? Are you trying to sugggest that in previous wars our enemies have not wanted to kill us or have gone out of their way to conduct themselves in a way convenient to us? Please, Simey?!?

Like I said, I support the elimination of FISA and the introduction of new legislation for the intelligence gathering community to allow them to conduct domestic spying. But asking that the government actually have a target in mind before they begin spying on a specific individual is NOT "giving an advantage to terrorists". And spying on MLK or spying on Joe Six-pack down the street, without a reason, are BOTH incidents of gross abuse of domestic sureveillance operations.

It would seem you are advocating a system that grants the government license to spy domestically without any real oversight. If the government can spy domestically without having to identify a target before-hand then that essentially grants them license to spy on anyone and claim it is for the War on Terror. Is that what you are really trying to say? That the government doesn't need to have specific targets in mind when they conduct domestic surveillance? I am asking this explicitly because I have yet to see you argue that un-specific spying is unacceptable.

So, to be absolutely clear, I will state my opinion on the matter and then ask you yours.
I do NOT think the government should be granted powers to spy domestically without restrictions requiring a specific target in mind before beginning a sureveillance operation. What do you think about this, Simey? Do you think the government should be allowed to spy domestically without a specific target in mind?

[dcmacdaddy]

dp.

[dcmacdaddy]

tp.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

The program is not not unlawful. Indeed, it's necessary. But in any case, it wasn't their decision to declassify it, and they went about it completely the wrong way. They broke the law by revealing classified information to the enemy in wartime, significantly weakening our ability to defend ourselves. They couldn't have done worse if they had simply spied for al-Queda. Throw them in jail, and throw away the key.

If they broke the law, they should be prosecuted. But I find it hard to believe that this gave away anything. All that was leaked was that Bush wasn't using a court that was secret anyway. It was a technical legal matter that, though important internally to our system, couldn't have given away anything substantive to anyone. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be prosecuted if they broke the law, but substantively I don't see how it harmed national security.

In addition, I don't know how something like this could be legitimately investigated anyway. Members of Congress were briefed on this, but, as I understand it, are forbidden to reveal it to anyone, even other members of congress. So what do you do? If a members of Congress had publicly discussed this, they'd probably be kicked out of Congress by now. Do they report it to the Justice Department? :???:

In any case, IF it is unlawful, the proper course is for government whistleblowers (or those who think they are whistleblowers) to report privately to Congress. Especially, of course, if they think it is a law passed by Congress that is being violated. They do not have the right to leak the information to newspapers. That is not whistleblowing. That is criminal behavior plain and simple. They took the law into their own hands, and it is wrong.

I would like to see the criminals in government ratted out. We can start with these traitors.

I think you're right, they are traitors.